No human rights risk in Saudi deal

Your reports says that "Opponents of both deals [al-Yamamah and Salam] say they breach the government's arms export guidelines, which say sales should not be approved for countries which abuse human rights" (Britain and the Saudis finally sign £4.43bn Eurofighter deal, September 18). In fact the EU code of conduct says: "Having assessed the recipient country's attitude towards relevant principles established by international human rights instruments, the government will: a) not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression; b) exercise special caution and vigilance in issuing licences, on a case-by-case basis and taking account of the nature of the equipment, to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies."

There is absolutely no "clear risk" of the Saudis using the Eurofighters for internal repression. They have no record of having used combat aircraft for this purpose and it is unclear, "taking account of the nature of the equipment", as to how they could credibly use them for internal repression or to infringe human rights.Brinley SalzmannDefence Manufacturers Association

Why does Saudi Arabia need another 72 warplanes? No Middle East country presents any threat, not even Israel. Under no circumstances would the US countenance military threats to its second closest ally in the region, for its dependence on Saudi oil is crucial to its economic survival. The estimated £20bn cost would be better spent supporting the beleaguered Palestinian Authority. Eric DeakinsLondon